HKSAR v. LEE TUNG HOI

DCCC 966/ 2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 966 OF 2008

--------------------------

----------------------

Reasons for Sentence

The charge and facts

The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 144.37 grammes of a powder containing 7.76 grammes of cocaine (1st charge).   

In the evening of 10 September 2008, the Defendant drove a taxi up to Ching Tak Street.  He left the taxi and then returned after a short while furtively.  The police shouted at him to stop.  They revealed their police identity.  He got onto the taxi and tried to drive away without success as the traffic was slow and the police had blocked the way.  Upon search, a plastic bag with contents (later analysed to be 144.37 grammes of a powder containing 7.76 grammes of cocaine) was found at the Defendant’s waist underneath the shorts.

Under caution at scene, he admitted that he intended to sell the cocaine.  In the post-record, he added that he claimed that he just helped someone to convey something and he had no knowledge of what it was. 

The Defendant’s circumstances

He is now 41 years old.  He has a clear record.  He takes good care of his family, which comprises his wife, 2 young children, and aged parents.  Being the main breadwinner, he has been under grave financial strain.  For a reward of $2,000, he undertook to convey the drug in question to a destination to be notified in due course.

Apart from himself, his wife, his daughter, and the taxi company also write to commend on his good character.     

The principles of sentencing

Trafficking in cocaine

In Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, which was a case of trafficking in cocaine, Silke VP observed that the harm of cocaine was closely linked to the harm of heroin.  It would have the same sentence as R v Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR, which set out the tariff sentences for trafficking in heroin as follows:

(1)  Up to 10 grammes of heroin, 2 to 5 years;

(2)  10 to 50 grammes, 5 to 8 years;

(3)  50 to 200 grammes, 8 to 12 years;

(4)  200 to 400 grammes, 12 to 15 years;

(5)  400 to 600 grammes, 15 to 20 years;

(6)  Over 600 grammes, 20 years upwards.

His counsel in mitigation puts forward 2 cases which exemplify what sentences have been passed for similar quantities of drug as follows:

(1)  In HKSAR v Cheung Chi-kin CACC 35/2008, the applicant who was selling 8.55 grammes of cocaine was given a starting point of 4 years and 9 months;

(2)  In R v Tsang Kam-ha Cr App 538/1996, the applicant who conveyed 7.92 grammes of heroin for her husband was given 2 ½ years on a plea of guilty, reflecting a notional starting point of 3 years and 9 months. 

The sentence I pass

The Defendant was a courier of the drug.  Based on the guidelines laid down in R v Lau Tak-ming (supra) I adopt a starting point of 3 ½ years' imprisonment.  I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months because of the plea of guilty and his clear record.  There are no other mitigating factors.  This is the sentence for the 1^st charge.